https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59863
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aleksey.covacevice at gmail
dot co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59863
--- Comment #4 from Samuel Tardieu ---
Note that clang has this bug "in reverse": it unifies the arrays even when
recursive calls are possible and address escapes the defining function
(http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18557).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59863
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
This is also simply a gimplification issue. For larger arrays we initialize
the stack with an aggregate copy from the constant pool.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59863
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is caused by checking TREE_ADDRESSABLE on the a decl which is correct
thing to do but the issue is there is no addressing taking in the code (only an
implicit one with a[i]:
/* An array that is inde
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59863
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, sam at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is there anything in the C standard preventing a const array declared in a
> function from being put in .rodata or are those missed optimi
